Are you sure the P2P going at less than 1 KB/s has to do with your ISP bandwidth? It sounds to me that your ISP just blocked those ports needed by P2P programs. If that's the case, you'd need to assign and open a new port for those programs.

sorry sorry, what i meant to say is that my ports are blocked because i can not get more than 1kb/s on p2p. my connection is fine. i have asked my isp to forward a port for me. if they say no, what can i do?

Staff: Mentor

128kbps is 16kBps, not 1. It isn't your isp that is causing you to have slow transfers.

Also, most isps will cap uploads at substantially lower speeds than downloads. Are you sure you don't have them mixed up? An ISP wouldn't cap different types of downloads at different speeds - it would take too much effort.

An ISP wouldn't cap different types of downloads at different speeds - it would take too much effort.

Actually some isp's are doing it. Below is a link to a thread over at Slyck News where some people discussed this same issue. A quick search will return many other accounts of isp's throttling bandwith of certain p2p aplications.

A quote from the thread;
more and more ISPs are throttling P2P traffic. Modern traffic shaping technology does not rely on simply blocking ports, but identifies all the major P2P protocols by packet analysis.

Staff: Mentor

Actually some isp's are doing it. Below is a link to a thread over at Slyck News where some people discussed this same issue. A quick search will return many other accounts of isp's throttling bandwith of certain p2p aplications.

A quote from the thread;
more and more ISPs are throttling P2P traffic. Modern traffic shaping technology does not rely on simply blocking ports, but identifies all the major P2P protocols by packet analysis.

Most systems are still geared to dial-up and limit the size of a packet to 256k.

Throttling has to do with the polling of specific ports over a period of time.

Increasing the packet sizes allows the movement of a greater amount of data over the same number of polls. Even going up to 512K does not just double the size of the packet but removes the necessity for two sets of packet addressing and checksums etc.

256k is an anachronism only necessary for dial-up, switched connections resulting in freequent data loss due to analogue lines.

permit icmp any any traceroute
deny icmp any any echo
deny icmp any any echo-reply
deny tcp any any range 135 139
deny tcp any any eq 445
deny tcp any any eq 1025
deny tcp any any eq 1027
deny tcp any any eq 1434
deny udp any any eq 1434
deny tcp any any eq 2745
deny tcp any any eq 27374
deny tcp any any eq 5554
deny tcp any any eq 9996
deny tcp any any eq 3127
deny tcp any any eq 6129
deny tcp any any eq 9900
deny tcp any any eq 31337
deny tcp any any eq 31338
deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss
deny udp any any eq 1900
deny udp any any eq 31337
deny udp any any eq 31338
deny udp any any eq syslog
deny udp any any eq netbios-ns
deny udp any any eq netbios-dgm
deny tcp any any eq 2856

im using download on port 4111, and upload on port 4222. still unable to download at more than 1kb/s

permit icmp any any traceroute
deny icmp any any echo
deny icmp any any echo-reply
deny tcp any any range 135 139
deny tcp any any eq 445
deny tcp any any eq 1025
deny tcp any any eq 1027
deny tcp any any eq 1434
deny udp any any eq 1434
deny tcp any any eq 2745
deny tcp any any eq 27374
deny tcp any any eq 5554
deny tcp any any eq 9996
deny tcp any any eq 3127
deny tcp any any eq 6129
deny tcp any any eq 9900
deny tcp any any eq 31337
deny tcp any any eq 31338
deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss
deny udp any any eq 1900
deny udp any any eq 31337
deny udp any any eq 31338
deny udp any any eq syslog
deny udp any any eq netbios-ns
deny udp any any eq netbios-dgm
deny tcp any any eq 2856

im using download on port 4111, and upload on port 4222. still unable to download at more than 1kb/s

the speeds will start at 1kb/s and then steadily drop to zero.

If you read the link I quoted you would see that it doesn't have to do with port blocking exactly, but by identifying protocols of certain p2p packets. It doesn't matter what port you use it may still block the packets it identifys as undesirable.

My suggestion would be to try another p2p program thats not quite as popular (not sure what you are using). I myself use bit tornado, and don't experience any problems, but that doesn't mean it will work for you. Read some (or start a thread) at the forums I posted if you really want to get around this, the people there will most likely be more helpful as the whole site is about p2p programs...